The Swiss Reformation elevated the question of how religious leaders and lay politicians would define their respective spheres of jurisdiction and influence. In his work, Hans Ulrich Bächtold highlighted Heinrich Bullinger's political involvement through his speeches before the Zurich city council.Footnote 1 In particular, Bächtold argued that Bullinger's increased involvement in poor relief reform marked an important “turning point” that showed the broadening of Bullinger's work into the political arena of social policy reform. Many programs of the Zurich political system were not simply technocratic creations, but the result of political disputes between the Reformed ministers and the civic authorities.Footnote 2 More recently, Andreas Mühling has called for further research on the issues raised by Bächtold in order to analyze Bullinger's objectives and the determinative themes of his church politics.Footnote 3 In response, this article addresses how Bullinger's biblical interpretation informed his pastoral work as the leading minister of Zurich by examining his advocacy for poor relief reform in his commentaries, sermons, and speeches. According to Bächtold, while the council had carried out more passive employment policies in the early 1550s, the council in the 1570s pursued employment policies with increasing intensity, aided by conspicuous advising from the leading churchmen.Footnote 4 However, this article argues that Bullinger's involvement in the 1550s, beginning with his proposals to the city council on care for the poor, should not be underestimated. Furthermore, Bullinger's framework for including care for the poor within the minister's pastoral role was established much earlier in the 1530s. So rather than a turning point in the 1570s, Bullinger's involvement in poor relief reform was a consistent development from his articulation of his theological views in the 1530s, applied to the Zurich context in the 1550s, and politically supported in the 1570s. An examination of Bullinger's biblical interpretation and scriptural references in his commentaries, sermons, and speeches reveals a persistent concern for the care of the poor from the early years to the end of his ministry in Zurich.
In light of pressing social needs, Bullinger expanded his work into the domain of political jurisdiction.Footnote 5 While scholars have examined Bullinger's sermons, speeches, and correspondences, his commentaries have not received much attention with regard to poor relief. Since the clergy were obligated to expound on the Bible for the magistrates and citizens, it is important to consider Bullinger's commentaries with his sermons and speeches to attain a deeper understanding of his religious views and motivations. His biblical interpretation provides an additional component for understanding his advocacy on poor relief because his interpretation of scriptures was not peripheral to his political activity, but rather was central to Bullinger's understanding of his particular contributions to poor relief and to the justification of his involvement in poor relief reform.
Quite often, the separation of religious and political spheres in cities such as Basel, Berne, and Schaffhausen meant that magistrates ruled over the ministers by having the final say in nearly all church matters. While previous scholarship has made a similar assumption about Zurich, Pamela Biel, in her study on Heinrich Bullinger and the role of the Zurich clergy, questioned this narrative, which simply accepted that pastors were subservient to politicians. Rather, she argued that Bullinger's distinction between the roles of ministers and magistrates did not mean a passive acceptance of magisterial sovereignty in all matters of external governance, but rather an expectation of ministerial participation in politics or social justice whenever necessary.Footnote 6 Biel concluded that the assumption that ministers were passive subordinate employees of the state did not account for the range of their theory and practice.Footnote 7 Hence, the theme of poor relief and its related issues provides a useful lens for understanding the overlapping connections between Bullinger's theological, political, and social work as chief minister of Zurich.
Because the magistrates now controlled church resources and were responsible for legislating poor relief policies, Bullinger worked within this system to persuade magistrates to action. His efforts to preserve the freedom of preachers and his prowess in exercising this freedom through sermons and speeches conveyed his expectations that religious ideals about care for the poor and communal responsibility would serve as the foundation for social policies. Bullinger believed that the magistrates needed the ministers to guide them in the right use of communal wealth. In his book on Bullinger and the prophetic office, Daniël Timmerman shows that Bullinger's options for the well-being of the state included godly rulers and the ministry of preachers who ensured that God's word had its impact on society.Footnote 8 Ministers were already exercising the skills for reforming institutions and also had experiential knowledge of the actual needs of poor parishioners in their communities. To a large extent, Bullinger accepted and supported magisterial rule, since after all it was part of his job to announce council mandates from the pulpit.Footnote 9 But while Bullinger accepted the demarcations of political and religious spheres, he resisted the notion that unquestioning subservience to civic authorities would be the most effective means for social stability, especially in the area of poor relief.
Bullinger tested the jurisdictional demarcations meant to limit or prohibit clerical involvement in political matters from the beginning, but increasingly in his mature years. What he defended in principle at the beginning of his career he put into practice in the second half of his career. Bruce Gordon argued that Zurich was an exception among Swiss cities after its religious wars in the early 1530s, largely because of Bullinger's leadership.Footnote 10 Starting in the 1550s, during the second half of his career in Zurich, Bullinger strove to exert his influence on a matter technically under the jurisdiction of civil magistrates. This intervention arose because of three reasons. First, based on the numerous biblical texts dealing with the poor and needy, as well as money and generosity, Bullinger considered poor relief a religious issue and perceived ministers to be taking on the role of prophet in their advocacy for the needy. Second, Bullinger supported the transfer of religious property from Catholic clergy to city magistrates because he expected the magistrates to use the communal wealth acquired from confiscated church property for social institutions that would undergird a Reformed vision of a godly society, such as establishing schools, hospitals, and poor relief programs. Although the magistrates earmarked some of the former church property for the founding of schools, early Swiss Reformed ministers had to lobby repeatedly for these schools. Third, the overwhelming problem of poverty and vagrancy impelled ministers to urge the council to action, despite the ban on clerical preaching regarding political matters. Bullinger's pastoral work (with the support of his fellow ministers) contributed to the religious ideals shaping his political involvement in social policy reforms.
Bullinger's exegetical work led to a renewed focus on the practical ramifications of biblical principles.Footnote 11 According to Martin Hohl, Bullinger's contribution to subsequent economic development was a new understanding of wealth based on religious principles. When Bullinger instilled the importance of “mutual reliance,” embodied in religious values such as “trust and faith,” he broadened its application from theology to economy, society, and the state.Footnote 12 While magistrates eagerly backed trade and business transactions among wealthy partners, they struggled to resolve policies for poor relief and begging. In this context, Bullinger criticized the misappropriation of church property and implored the city magistrates to alleviate the hunger of the poor. His interest in poor relief and communal wealth were resultant social concerns and a consequence of biblical ideals of community. Specifically in his study of Bullinger's sermons, Peter Opitz connects Bullinger's social concerns to his notion of community in the body of Christ. This meant that the purpose of religious life did not simply consist of imitating Christ or performing works of piety, but also connecting with a larger community of believers. For Opitz, the concrete framework of the communal life, which Bullinger associated with the civic community, was the “body of Christ” (corpus christianum) in which the “Christian magistrate—either as king or city council—had its prophetic counterpart in the minister of the Word, whose role was to remind the magistrates of their duties.”Footnote 13 Extending Opitz's general point to the specific issue of poor relief, Bullinger's preaching urged faith in action within a social context of relationships, or within a community. Consequently, Bullinger saw poor relief as a communal activity, including individual acts of charity, but not solely defined by these acts.
I. Historical Context of the Swiss Reform
Early in the sixteenth century, the city of Zurich seized vast amounts of church property in a process called secularization, thereby transferring management of church resources from clergy to lay city councilors. After the defeat at the Second Battle of Kappel in October 1531, when the leading reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, died, the magistrates chose to separate areas of religious and political jurisdiction with the specific intention of limiting the influence of ministers in the political sphere, including “no more explicit political preaching.”Footnote 14 The magistrates designed separate jurisdictions with the intention of curbing religious power, and maintaining control over the churches by hiring ministers and preachers to staff the churches in the city and countryside. As one of the earliest communities to accept the Reformation of its religious life, Zurich's influence would extend to other major cities in the Swiss Confederation and southwest Germany. According to Lee Wandel, because some practices of late medieval religion provoked a consuming image, early Swiss Reform demonstrated a noticeable resistance to any type of conspicuous consumption at the expense of the prolonged suffering of the poor.Footnote 15 While symbolic notions of the poor shifted in Bullinger's generation, the resistance to consumptive behaviors persisted and pervaded the world which Zwingli's successor inherited. Meanwhile, new economic stresses would test the ideals of religious community and civic harmony when ministers and magistrates did not share the same priorities for poor relief.
Zurich councilors had sought earlier to limit the religious, political, and economic influence of the Catholic bishops, but now they sought to circumscribe the role of Protestant ministers in politics. According to Christian Moser's work on Bullinger's history of the Zurich Reformation, Bullinger's overriding concerns were the “development and implementation of the Reformation” and the “confrontations and changes in the ecclesiastical and political spheres.”Footnote 16 Against the Anabaptists, who resisted government involvement in religious affairs, Bullinger's ideal of a godly magistrate shaped his efforts for the close cooperation of magistrate and preacher.Footnote 17 Yet in the work of establishing the goals of the Reformation, Bullinger defended the minister's prophetic role. As Timmerman explains, the use of the prophetic title for preachers helped to reestablish “the social and political position of the Zurich clergy after Zwingli's death.”Footnote 18 As commissioned chief minister of the Grossmünster (or Great Minster, the capitular church), Bullinger accepted magisterial authority for socio-political affairs, but sought to maintain some autonomy in his religious responsibilities. While Bullinger understood this separation in principle, he fought to maintain the prophetic role as preacher and regarded any efforts to restrict that role as an infringement on the freedom of the minister to preach the Word of God.Footnote 19 In his 1532 Ordinance for Preachers and the Synod, Bullinger argues that while preachers are loyal to the magistrates, they are allowed “to address abuse, superstition and other evil with forceful words from Scripture.”Footnote 20 His long tenure would allow him to establish the structures of Reformed worship and organization, as well as to advocate for particular social issues. In order to secure Bullinger in the post as Zwingli's successor (since he was being recruited by multiple cities), the city rulers agreed to allow ministers to convey any “criticism of government policy privately in writing.”Footnote 21 Bullinger's study of biblical texts influenced his earliest writings on the pastoral function, upholding the care of the poor as the foundation of pastoral ministry.Footnote 22 Bullinger believed the state's effectiveness in poor relief depended on the office of the ministry.Footnote 23
Civic authorities now subsumed the resources previously left in the hands of the religious houses and monasteries in order to allot them for the care of the poor. While Bullinger supported the secularization of church property, he quickly condemned any use that did not support the ministries of the church nor contributed directly to social welfare. However, magistrates would dip into the recently acquired church funds despite protests by religious leaders in cities undergoing the Reformation. When city councilors felt the strain of debts and revenue shortages, accompanied by the constant threat of war, magistrates drew from financial resources and reserves of church funds, which resulted in “emptying the pockets of the church.”Footnote 24 As a result, Bullinger strove to convince the civic authorities to use confiscated church property correctly since “to put church goods to profane and godless uses was to commit sacrilege.”Footnote 25 Bullinger grew disappointed with the Zurich council as ecclesiastical resources intended for church personnel, maintenance, and social welfare became the means of an economic bailout for a struggling city.
II. Bullinger as Minister and PreacherFootnote 26
Bullinger and other ministers considered it their ministerial duty to guide Christians on care for the poor, especially as demands outpaced resources. Because the clergy no longer managed the resources of church property, they urged the council to improve the city's management of church property to address problems of poverty whenever they felt the city council was shirking its responsibility. With firsthand knowledge about suffering members of their community, ministers, particularly in the countryside, were knowledgeable about their poor parishioners’ statuses. For example, when a poor person from the countryside needed health care, the hospital doctor would care for the person gratis only if he or she could present a letter written by the local pastor attesting to indigence. Therefore, ministers in the countryside had more than a passing acquaintance with the physical welfare of the people in their communities, since they had the responsibility for giving referrals to the sick and sending them to the central clinic.Footnote 27 Therefore, the clergy in both the city and the countryside became integral to the administrative systems of social welfare.Footnote 28 This integration meant that ministers would have particular knowledge that would make them uniquely suited to give advice on matters of poor relief.
Based on his pastoral activity recorded in his Diarium and throughout his correspondence, Bullinger's primary concern was the pastoral care of the Zurich church.Footnote 29 Bullinger considered it his job to remind the councilors that the primary purpose of church resources was to fund ecclesiastical and social reform, such as establishing the pastorate, schools, and poor relief programs. Based on biblical stories of Acts and the history of the church, Bullinger considered such uses of communal wealth as signs of a genuine Christian community. In his interpretation of scriptures, Bullinger saw that the Bible repeatedly urged generosity toward those in need. Recognizing the harsh realities of poverty in those persons who were disfigured by accident, hardship, distress, or sickness, pastors such as Bullinger had compassion on the suffering poor. The growth of population and poverty noticeable in towns and cities, as well as in rural areas, coupled with the biblical mandate to relieve the poor, prompted religious reformers to address the problem of poverty as part of their spiritual mission.
Bullinger's interpretation of scriptures served as his rationale for engaging, even intervening, in social policy. His commentaries reflected his conviction that socioeconomic decisions reflected personal piety, as economic decisions became a revealing gauge displaying one's true faith. From early in his Zurich career, Bullinger's biblical interpretation demonstrated his perspective that piety and compassion go together. For Bullinger, faith shaped economic decisions. In his commentary on Acts (first published in 1533), Bullinger linked piety and faith to the duty of generosity by arguing that if the faithful would be stewards of their external wealth, and if they would have piety in their hearts, it would be possible to relieve the needy.Footnote 30 If sharing resources could meet the needs of the poor, then privation would indicate a moral problem, namely greed. Bullinger asserts, “In truth we all were most willing to be instructed against idolatry, but now no one has compassion on the poor.”Footnote 31 His admonition exposed the people's willingness to receive right instruction concerning the teachings against idolatry, but much less eagerness to change their views about the poor because of the consequential responsibility to actually care for them.
For biblical motivation, Bullinger highlighted two models of piety and compassion in this early commentary on Acts. First, Joseph (also called Barnabas) demonstrated exemplary generosity when he sold his property and donated the proceeds to the apostles for the care of the poor and other needs in the community. Joseph's act earned him the descriptive name, a son of consolation or encouragement. Second, Paulinus of Nola, a church father recognized by Augustine, Ambrose, and Jerome, was an exemplary fourth-century model in his own right. According to Bullinger, while marauding bands of barbarians took over Nola, the ascetic bishop would not be weighed down by riches nor keep them for himself. Instead, he spent all his wealth to ransom the captives since he did not want to “be tormented by gold or silver.”Footnote 32 These two figures from Acts 4 and the early church established a high ethical standard for believers, whereas two figures in Acts 5:1–11 demonstrated just how difficult such a high level of renunciation would be for many others.
If Barnabas in Acts 4 was a positive biblical model for charitable practice, then Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 were the antithesis. In Acts 5, the couple sold their property and gave a partial donation to the apostles. When questioned about the total amount of the profit, they each lied that they had donated all their profits to the apostles. This lie led to sudden death for both of them. In the case of Ananias and Sapphira, Bullinger made explicit what was only implicit in his earlier interpretation of Joseph Barnabas. If high ethical standards of charity and generosity were indicative of a deep faith, then the inverse was also true, namely that disbelief led to immoral decisions; in other words, impiety and greed went together. For Bullinger, disbelief or unbelief lay at the heart of this story.
Like other reformers such as John Calvin, Bullinger operated under an abundance mentality, which emerged from a theological view of divine providence and the sense that earthly resources were sufficient for meeting basic human needs. However, Bullinger differed from Calvin's interpretation about the nature of Ananias's sin. Unlike Calvin, who delineates a long list of sins in this one act of deception, Bullinger declares, “in reality it was a single sin, certainly one of disbelief.”Footnote 33 Bullinger was less interested in discovering all the permeations of Ananias's peccadillos, but simply focused on the root of all sin, namely disbelief. While Calvin sought to justify the harsh penalty of death by expounding on the multitude of sins in this one act, Johannes Brenz, a south German Lutheran minister, argued that the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was the ambition for vainglory, since their act was meant to bolster them to celebrity status.Footnote 34 Meanwhile, Bullinger simply accepted that instant death by apostolic pronouncement was an extraordinary example.Footnote 35 For Bullinger, disbelief had dire consequences, because the lack of faith diminished any fear of God or the justice of God, and increased the willingness to sin. In addition, Bullinger linked Ananias with the ignominious practice of simony and described Ananias as someone determined to sit in two seats—on the one hand to be held as illustrious in the Christian community for his donations and the sharing of his resources, and on the other hand to be protected if the resources managed by the apostles would be depleted. Hence, Ananias and Sapphira stood as examples of hypocrites, who hide a divided heart and ulterior motives “by acting with no genuine concern.”Footnote 36 Since the motivation was fueled by disbelief and laced with ulterior motives, Ananias was guilty of deception, hypocrisy, and dishonesty. With this biblical example, Bullinger warned of impostors in the church “who by appearance and form are Christians, but yet in deed are impostors and despisers of the divine plan.”Footnote 37 These two figures pretended to spend all their resources, but meanwhile reserved the better part for themselves, which led Bullinger to conclude that disbelief in divine justice and providence yielded avarice and duplicity.Footnote 38
Having established the positive and the negative exemplars, Bullinger addressed the problem of unequal distribution. In the early church, the management of communal wealth was tested through conflict and controversy, specifically over the unequal distribution to the Hebrew and Hellenistic widows. Interpreting Acts 6:1–7 in light of his sixteenth-century context, Bullinger underscored the two main hindrances to equal distribution of resources: first, preferential treatment and second, a lack of central administration. In the first instance, Bullinger's comments demonstrated the European sensitivity to regional allegiances that sometimes expressed itself as an aversion to all things foreign, especially when faced with problems of economic scarcity. Some of the complaints came from the suspicion that distribution of goods neglected “their own native citizens, while some of the foreigners were provided for.”Footnote 39 The Greeks spoke up because they were overlooked in the daily relief of the poor, and furthermore it seems as if their reasonable complaints were not considered as seriously as those of the Hebrews.Footnote 40 Since widows occupied a marginalized position, they lived in destitution because the loss of a male spouse often led to a loss of status and income.Footnote 41 Here Bullinger recalled the Hebrew prophets who regularly taught that widows and orphans should be assisted in their necessity as for the “calamitous destitute.”Footnote 42 However, even among widows, there could be some differentiation in the amount of relief given to those who were considered native to the region and those who were foreigners in that place. In the Swiss context, the reactionary aversion to outsiders and women's roles in the economic sphere would increase as the local economic situation declined.Footnote 43
Concerning the second issue, regarding the management of resources, Bullinger recognized that other helpers would contribute to this work, but he continued to highlight the role of the ministers. Since the primary responsibility of ministers was to preach the Word of God, the resulting specialization of deacons resulted in a practical division of labor.Footnote 44 In the work of daily food distribution, the apostles delegated this task to the Hebrew women so that they might serve themselves and take care of their necessities.Footnote 45 Yet, complaints arose because of unfair distribution. According to Bullinger, the pastors were the ones to voice the concerns of the Hellenistic widows, presumably overlooked in the distribution of food.Footnote 46 Crediting ancient church leaders as advocates for the equitable support of poor widows, Bullinger saw pastors within that early Christian tradition as advocates for the marginalized.
Serving as the Antistes, or chief minister in Zurich, meant that Bullinger's main job was to preach at the services of the head city church. Despite the initial ban on explicit political preaching, Bullinger continued to defend the prophetic role of a preacher as he addressed sensitive issues. For example, in discussing the requirements for the ordination of ministers, Bullinger argued that the responsibility of the ministers included preaching on the care of the poor because their job was to continually encourage the richer people to have mercy, so that they might be willing to share.Footnote 47 While the negative cliché of greedy preachers asking for money abounded in literature and art, Bullinger was clear that ministers’ main reason for encouraging donations was to care for the poor so that “their needs would not be neglected, but rather they would be valued as members of Christ.”Footnote 48 Bullinger disparaged those monks and priests who prayed for money or sold their prayers,Footnote 49 even though he recognized that church ministers could also be vulnerable to coveting, hoarding, and greed. Bullinger tried to rehabilitate higher standards for ministers so that they would be the moral conscience of the community.
In the collection of sermons called Decades (first and second decades published in 1549 and the full folio published in 1552), Bullinger elaborated on the greatest commandment, namely loving God and neighbor. Drawing on multiple scriptural passages and Augustine's On Christian Doctrine, Bullinger explained that to love one's neighbor meant there was “no difference between charity and love.”Footnote 50 He echoed the broadest extent of this command when he noted, “Everyone who stands in need of our aid, is our neighbor.”Footnote 51 However, Bullinger drew on Augustine to define the practical limits of this command, which dictated the extent of one's responsibility. Since one could not serve all people everywhere, one would especially focus on caring for those who were “by lot, more closely connected, or by opportunity either of time, place or any other thing.”Footnote 52 Therefore, the obligation started with those nearest by relation or opportunity. Building on biblical references Bullinger also supported “doing good especially to those of the household of faith” and “to have godly care of those in one's own home.”Footnote 53 Meanwhile, Bullinger did not neglect the needs of outsiders, since for him works of mercy included the burial of the poor or even strangers.
While promoting a generous range of charity, Bullinger sought to understand the nature of poverty. He linked some causes of poverty to poor moral behavior, especially consumptive behaviors that drained financial resources. Since those resources could support one's family or help the deserving poor, he sought to reinforce moral mandates calling for moderation in eating, drinking, and luxuries. The right use of money was a major concern for reformers like Bullinger because the wrong use of money played a large role in a number of detrimental behaviors. In his Dedicatory Letter to fellow ministers accompanying his sermons of the First and Second Decades, Bullinger lists twenty things on the disapproved list; three dealt with sexual behavior, namely incest, adultery, and fornication; four dealt with belief, namely blasphemies, idolatry, superstition, and ungodliness; five dealt with social relations, namely pride, slander, anger, envy, and blood-shedding; and the remaining eight dealt with uses of wealth, namely covetousness, usury, luxury, drunkenness, gorging, bribery, mercenary warfare, and oppression and contempt of the poor.Footnote 54
In Bullinger's assessment of political rule, the best civic laws reflected the precepts of the Ten Commandments and the rule of charity.Footnote 55 Regarding the eighth commandment (thou shall not steal), Bullinger specifically advocated for the poor by elaborating on the right use of goods and appropriate spending in this transitory life.Footnote 56 He supported restitution for whatever was acquired unjustly, and argued that the remaining wealth would “prosper the better, endure the longer, and be far more fruitful.”Footnote 57 To compensate for financially unscrupulous behaviors, Bullinger argued that giving donations partly offset injustices committed in accruing wealth. Therefore, if heirs perceived that their riches were gained unjustly, they should be more liberal in their giving to make amends and not double “the evil in possessing unjustly.”Footnote 58 Having set up the parameters for just profit and disposal of ill-gotten possessions, Bullinger reminded his audience that confidence in riches was foolish at best and dangerous at worst because it led to worshiping idols and trusting in uncertain riches, rather than in the ultimate goal of heaven and in the living God.Footnote 59 Because overreliance on anything besides God hinders generosity, Bullinger recalled the Hebrew prophet Jeremiah who warned, “Let not the wise glory in their wisdom, nor the strong in their strength, nor the rich in their riches.”Footnote 60 Referring to the parable of the Good Samaritan, Bullinger recognized that empathy was the way to charity since the act of mercy started with “regarding another's trouble as our own,” rather than making excuses. The Samaritan model provided “a most godly and absolute example of love” since the Samaritan liberally donated his services and gave his resources for another's necessity.Footnote 61
In his last sermon of the fourth Decades, published in 1552, Bullinger interprets the Pauline saying, “Let us do good” as “let us be bountiful and liberal toward the poor, while we have the time.”Footnote 62 He described how the wealthy should spread their riches among others like a sponge pressed and poured upon the earth.Footnote 63 Relating to the end of earthly life, Bullinger's language reflected a sense of urgency for the distribution of resources. Rather than entertaining the men of credit,Footnote 64 the wealthy should aid orphans, poor widows, the elderly, those afflicted for the profession of truth, and any oppressed with misery and calamity, as well as worshipers and true ministers of God who live in want and scarcity.Footnote 65 His sermons reflected an effort to cultivate the Christian virtue of generosity, including the care of strangers. For Bullinger, the proper use of wealth applied both to individuals and community funds.
Yet, Zurich ministers were suspicious of magistrates for appropriating resources not for the poor, but for other political needs. Therefore ministers found themselves in the awkward position of calling for people to give to the poor when there was uncertainty about the donations’ final allocations. While Luther had given greater license to princes for the use of remaining church resources,Footnote 66 Bullinger was more stringent about the council's use of church property. When church funds did not go toward their intended purpose, ministers voiced their disapproval. Bullinger was critical of those “who abused the public goods of the church and spent them according to their own private lusts.”Footnote 67 Throughout his career, he, along with other ministers, consistently criticized the misappropriation of church funds.
One reason for Bullinger's harsh criticism of the misappropriation of church property was that these funds were the main source not only for poor relief, but also for the pastors’ salary. If ministers were not supported by these funds, then many of them, along with their families, would undoubtedly fall into poverty. Bullinger defended the pastor's salary by claiming that they deserved fair compensation,Footnote 68 since ministers should not be compared to beggars, but rather to laborers, who are entitled to just wages.Footnote 69 He represented a class of employees when he decried the injustice of denying laborers their due wages because it brought suffering on them, including ministers, “to perish and decay through need.”Footnote 70 Hence, ministers were both advocates of the poor and representatives of the poor.
Along with covering the expenses of church building, its ministers, and teachers, the third purpose of ecclesiastical goods was earmarked for the poor, specifically widows, students, orphans, abandoned infants, the elderly, the sick, and religious refugees. Bullinger also included those who were not yet in extreme poverty but were ready to fall into it, as well as others who suffered because of imprisonment, wars, floods, fire, and other calamities. His rationale for poor relief was both theological and historical. The theological rationale represented a religious ideal that the Lord cared for all people regardless of status or circumstance, and more poignantly that the Lord identified with the poor. Whatever was given to the poor was given to the Lord. This rationale demonstrated the religious duty to care for the poor “by counsel, comfort, medicines, cures, money, meat, drink, clothes, lodgings, aid, and by any means that we have, in all cases that need our help.”Footnote 71 Echoing prophetic judgment, he claimed that where governors, either by negligence or wickedness, did not aid the poor, calamity would surely strike those commonwealths and kingdoms.Footnote 72
In his last sermon of the Decades, Bullinger discusses uses and abuses of ecclesiastical goods. He emphasizes the church's responsibility toward the poor, sick, and elderly, and a fair allocation of church funds. In addition to sincere teaching, faithful prayer, and administration of sacraments, Bullinger saw charity as an identifying marker of a good church.Footnote 73 Bullinger underscored the importance of looking after the poor and ensuring they are neither neglected nor defrauded. He drew on historical precedent of the ancient writers who testified that ecclesiastical goods served to redeem prisoners out of captivity; to provide dowries for poor maidens; to build hospitals, almshouses, hospices, harbors, hostels, and nurseries for the service of poor travelers; to maintain the poor; to relieve the sick, diseased, and elderly; and to raise pupils and orphans.Footnote 74 Bullinger argued that believers’ prayers remained dull and lifeless if they were “not inflamed with charity” because a high level of charitable action indicated active piety.Footnote 75
When he accepted his clerical position in Zurich, Bullinger understood the political hierarchy, in which the magistrates exercised the highest authority. While he would announce council mandates from the pulpit, Bullinger also sought to shape council policies, especially as an experienced minister in his mature years. Bullinger stated that God had appointed humans, not angels to help the poor, and good persons donate “money, houses, lands, and other goods, so that both the poor and also the holy ministry may be maintained.”Footnote 76 As his years of ministry in Zurich deepened his understanding of poverty and his reputation and influence reached international proportions, Bullinger relied on his preaching talent and persistence to provide both a theological rationale for addressing the problem of poverty and a historical basis for proper use of church funds.
III. Bullinger as Social Reformer
Concerned with the growing problem of poverty, Bullinger clamored for changes along with ministers who became de facto proponents of social reform. In a report to the council in the fall of 1540, Bullinger wrote that the country enjoyed unprecedented prosperity, but at the same time he demanded that the council plan ahead for possible difficult times to come.Footnote 77 In January 1544, it was necessary to revise the alms order of 1525 for the first time. This first change showed that the poor situation had become more difficult because the records indicated an increase from one pot to two pots of porridge to feed the needy.Footnote 78 The initial response from the city council was to limit aid to those designated as worthy poor. At this point, the council's intention was to divide the beggars into three groups according to their origin, whether from abroad, within the Swiss Confederation, or within their own territory, so that they would be supported differently. The council also renewed an earlier ban from 1533 so that foreigners could be accommodated for no more than eight days.
As the poor relief system began to break down, religious leaders became more involved in the political affairs of poor relief policy in part because pastors heard about poor parishioners’ needs on a regular basis. In the 1540s, signs of economic stress began to overwhelm the system and the rapidly increasingly number of beggars led to the reexamination of poor relief policies. By the late 1540s, the management of church property became a subject of continuous concern for both sides, as the council and synod started to blame each other for the seemingly unresolved problem of poverty and begging.
Bullinger's political speeches marked the reality of the lively social-political life of the church where the leading pastor would intermittently enter the political decision-making sphere of the council. From his arrival and establishment of the synod in 1532, Bullinger had worked with members of the council, but starting in the 1550s, as an experienced minister, Bullinger applied his reforming mind to the vexing social problem of poor relief. On March 7, 1551, Bullinger began vocalizing his critical perspective on the situation before the Small Council.Footnote 79 Informed by his biblical study, years of pastoral experiences, and the anxieties of social crises, Bullinger entered the arena of social policy reform.
In his speeches before the council in the 1550s and again in the 1570s, Bullinger highlighted his concern for an effective poor relief policy in four ways: (1) calling for the right use of church property, (2) criticizing the moral turpitude that consumed precious resources, (3) advocating for the outlawing of able-bodied begging, and (4) proposing job creation programs funded by the city. The first two concerns reiterated themes previously raised in his sermons, while the latter two concerns revealed a development in his practical proposals. The ministers were consistently critical of what they saw as a misguided church property policy. The city ministers reminded the politicians of the promises of the Reformation, which taught that the goods that had formerly served the “superstition” and the “Church of splendor” should now be awarded to the “living saintly poor.”Footnote 80 Tensions over the use of communal wealth in the form of confiscated church property became clearly apparent in December 1555, when a conflict erupted over the political preaching critical of the city council's choices. The minister of Töss, Rudolf Hüsli, was imprisoned in Zurich because he had criticized the church property policy in a sermon. Hüsli was released after two days of detention, but defrocked. On December 16, 1555, Bullinger came, accompanied by the city pastors, to the council to complain about the handling of this case. He protested not only against the degrading treatment of the pastor, but spoke generally about the use of church property. In his speech, Bullinger made it clear that church property should be used partly for the support of pastors and their households, partly for maintenance of the church buildings, partly for educating students, and partly for care of the poor.Footnote 81 His message was clear, that magistrates should not devise other plans for these resources, which were given and dedicated for these ministerial purposes.
Secondly, in both his sermons and speeches, Bullinger expressed his concern for moral problems related to begging and poverty. Because many people had fallen into begging because of their dissolute behavior, he argued for the enforcement of moral mandates. Excessive gorging, drinking, and gambling were signs of visible consumption that led many without reserves into poverty. Since noticeable consumption led to impoverishment, this social problem was treated as a moral deficiency associated with wrongful behavior. Even into the 1570s, Bullinger, along with Rudolf Gwalther (later Bullinger's successor), continued to deride moral corruption as one of the root causes of societal problems. For example, in their private report to the special commission in September 1572, they chided the increase of taverns, because they believed such businesses added to misery, poverty, and begging.Footnote 82
Thirdly, in response to a marked increase in the number of beggars in the 1540s, Bullinger blamed able-bodied beggars for exacerbating the socioeconomic dilemma of poverty and disorder.Footnote 83 Disturbed by those who would take resources needed for the truly poor, Bullinger observed, “many people who are healthy and fit for work are begging” because the begging profession had become more profitable than working.Footnote 84 In light of limited resources and growing need, Bullinger believed that reducing the number of able-bodied beggars would ultimately lead to the alleviation of poverty. Despite Bullinger's speech with Gwalther and Lavater (Bullinger's son-in-law and later Gwalther's successor) in 1551, the council still maintained a relatively passive role in combating poverty. Even though the council's treasurer, Jakob Werdmüller, encouraged the council to set up a business to give work to the poor, this entrepreneurial initiative remained in private hands since the council was only indirectly involved through tax rebates.Footnote 85 The council's ambivalence between centralization and decentralization of poor relief is evident in the vacillation between prohibition and permission of begging whenever demands on resources became too great.Footnote 86 Nevertheless, both ministers and politicians shared a sense of responsibility for resolving the economic strain of poor relief.
In 1558, Bullinger initiated an improvised working collaboration when he along with six other ministers appeared before the council.Footnote 87 With these ministers of the city churches, Bullinger brought a new measure before the council on March 23, 1558. He prefaced this measure by broadening his justification for the ministers’ engagement in the affairs of social policy, using biblical examples as well as examples of historical precedent. He justified the ministers’ involvement in poor relief reform based on multiple passages in Romans, Corinthians, Deuteronomy, Acts, 1 Timothy, Matthew, and 1 John.Footnote 88 In particular, Bullinger justified ministers getting involved in political matters by arguing that the case of the poor is a case for all Christians, especially the servants of the church. He cited biblical examples of the early apostles in Acts who took on the work of caring for the poor and he gave historical examples of how the clergy were in charge of almsgivings in the past. Therefore, Bullinger concluded, it should not be surprising that the servants of the church, namely the ministers, had both biblical and historical precedents for playing a pivotal role in poor relief; consequently, ministers could establish themselves as rightful authorities on the matter.Footnote 89 From a legal standpoint, the ministers had the right to monitor the alms accounts and the administration of local church property as a measure of accountability.Footnote 90 In response to the organized impetus from the ministers, the council immediately formed a commission to treat the proposals and findings.Footnote 91
As mentioned before, Bullinger distinguished between those who were truly poor and those who were beggars. This clarification explains why Bullinger sometimes sounded supportive of the poor while deeply critical of them as well. Like many of his contemporaries, he acknowledged the difference between those who were poor and needed assistance because they could not fully support themselves, and those able-bodied persons who begged as a profession. While Bullinger defended the support of the former, he strongly opposed the latter because he saw begging as diverting the resources that should be earmarked for the truly poor. Recognizing the growing trend of depletion as the number of poor doubled and then tripled in the span of two to three years, Bullinger outlined his strategic program. Simply put, the strong and healthy beggars would be prohibited from begging, in order to work; in contrast, the truly needy would be well cared for.Footnote 92 Bullinger argued that since poverty seemed to promote disruptive and harmful acts, as well as destructive protests, those who chose begging over another profession would not qualify for relief. His disdain for begging grew out of his observation that begging created irresponsibility since beggars seemed to waste their money. Bullinger observed, “With whatever amount they have begged in the morning, they sit in the streets and cellars, and drink. They linger in places where they can get wine, instead of bringing the money home to their children where it could help them. So you see them all around the city and the monasteries, they lay everywhere [having spent all their money].”Footnote 93
As Bullinger saw it, many of these beggars added to the disorderly behavior in the streets, since many of them did not live under rules or order, but instead did whatever they wanted and even taught their children to beg and the accompanying immoral behaviors.Footnote 94 Concerning the burgeoning number of able-bodied beggars, he urged the council to take action. Bullinger told the council first of all to prohibit the beggars because they were disruptive to society and second, to help the truly poor so that there would be no need for begging.Footnote 95 Whenever the council allowed begging, it allowed disruptive behaviors, which threatened peaceful order and social stability.
While his commentaries focused primarily on his theological reasons for poor relief, Bullinger's sermons straddled theological and social concerns as he exhorted listeners to ethical behavior and just action. In his speeches before the magistrates, he pinpointed political, economic, and social benefits of poor relief programs. Bullinger's extensive biblical interpretation, as revealed in his commentaries, fueled the practical applications in sermons and pastoral advocacy for the poor. Foundational religious values learned from the Bible plus experiential knowledge of poor parishioners and visitors empowered Bullinger to promote poor relief reform. He declared, “When you help the truly poor, things remain peaceful and orderly” with the added benefit that negative views and criticisms against the magistrates would likewise diminish,Footnote 96 thereby improving public opinion. In the last part of his 1558 speech, Bullinger did not forgo criticizing the wrongful use of church property. In particular, he noted that the failure to use church funds for their intended purpose had resulted in pathetic outcomes. The city had used the money to buy weapons, manufacture ammunitions, and pay for the war, so Bullinger remarked that such spending “did not bring much success, since church goods were meant for the poor, not for funding wars.”Footnote 97
A month later, on April 26, 1558, the ministers submitted ten action points to the special commission formed by the council. In their concerns about preventing poverty and its related problems such as employment, inflation, and debt, the ministers recognized the need for preventative measures. Even in the March proposals, the focus had been on the fact that able-bodied beggars should work and the truly poor should be supported. But in the April measures, specific changes demonstrated an effort to make ways for all the poor to be productive. In particular, the ministers argued:
Because the poor is not a small number, it is highly necessary to see how to provide the poor with labor so that they can work and earn [a living], whether it would be through fabric making or whatever else they could produce, that would be approved as desirable and useful, but not too demanding to make. We have some experience with the trade of cloth making, spinning yarn, making heavy fabric, to know how many could be supported with this. As we already know, yarn-weaving now provides for the young and old in Winterthur.Footnote 98
The actions of the church ministers illustrated their development into agents for social change by moving from focusing solely on moral deficiency and criticism to the management of poor relief, including practical suggestions for poverty reduction or prevention. Bulllinger argued that the city council should prohibit the “unseemly tug” of suspicious loans that caused rural residents to borrow money with interest and, as a result, go into debt.Footnote 99 He wrote, “Your Honors should not allow people to travel to another region to make money and bring it back, which they then loan to the farmers. Then the land is pawned to the loaner; [if the loan is not repaid,] the land is not given back to the poor people. This is the main cause of their downfall.”Footnote 100 Bullinger also called for state intervention in matters of price regulation, particularly for food supplies such as corn and grain. He derided the speculation of high food prices and petitioned the state to open up its stores of grain when prices skyrocketed.Footnote 101
According to Bullinger's diary, climate change inaugurated a new period of hardships. For the year 1571, he noted that many would surely die of hunger because of a limited harvest and he prayed for divine mercy, “God, come help us.”Footnote 102 In such dire circumstance, he also called the councilmen to join in congregational prayers.Footnote 103 A drawing on the cover of Johannes Jakob Wick's collection depicted the hard winter of 1570–1571 with images of a frozen Zurich lake and people falling through the ice, while ravenous wolves attacked and killed three seamstresses.Footnote 104 Like many others, Bullinger interpreted this Little Ice Age as a punishment from God and therefore called on believers to pray and live a moral life. Because many perceived the relentless calamities as divine judgment, the council ordered the introduction of a congregational prayer composed by Bullinger for this state of emergency. In the early 1570s, Bullinger covered the problems of “inflation, hunger, bad climate, war and sickness,” a comprehensive range of suffering by the people, and thereby gave their prayers a universal focus.Footnote 105 Faced with mass poverty, he called for special prayer meetings to seek divine intervention in response to this tragedy.
Bullinger saw poverty as a miserable problem that slyly found new reasons to arise.Footnote 106 Prompted by the food crisis caused by the colder climate change, the ministers and magistrates reviewed policies and revised practices as they continued to seek remedies. The council tried to manage the seriousness of the situation by appointing a new commission on February 24, 1571 to discuss further measures concerning the poor relief. However, their discussions did not amount to much change. When a certain helplessness regarding how to proceed arose, a council member approached Bullinger to ask for his advice.Footnote 107 This revealed a clear shift in the council's earlier attitude toward ministers when Bullinger first arrived in Zurich. Now the council, driven by the desperate winter of 1570–1571, turned to their long-standing chief minister for guidance. On May 4, 1571, Bullinger shifted the target of his criticism from the immoral poor to the immoral rich, as well as to the weak leadership of the magistrates and the upper class. This time, Bullinger was concerned with the poor example of leadership and complained that the upper class lifestyle had incited God's wrath.Footnote 108
The ministers believed that better discipline would contribute to economic and social stability. They directed this type of moral disciplining not only at able-bodied beggars, but also at civic leaders whose unethical practices resulted in the depletion of funds. In particular, on May 13, 1572, Bullinger addressed the suspicions against the alms administration, namely the suspected economic exploitation of the office by its director, Stolz. In a time when economic distress was high and poverty threatened the survival of many people, the apparent wealth and opulence of the alms office director was seen as suspicious. Bullinger's allegations originated from the enigmatic enrichment of the former shoemaker, who in the first year of his administration purchased personal goods costing 700 to 900 pounds, although he had previously lacked assets. He could afford to go to Constance to buy expensive leather, which was then processed by his companions; earlier he had barely been able to pay the tanners in Zurich. Since his new position in the alms administration, he suddenly led a complex and costly household.Footnote 109 Upon further examination into the allegations, the Large Council on June 11, 1572 instructed the wardens to make clear to the director that he must keep his private business separate from the alms administration and he ought not to entertain with nor obtain employees from the office for his business. Otherwise, he must resign the office.Footnote 110 This verification of misappropriation of alms funds served as a concrete and egregious example fueling the ministers’ critiques about the misuse of church funds.
In August 1572, the ministers came again before the Large Council because of the increasing social and economic hardships within their communities. As they reiterated their concern that moral decay produced social disorder, they urged the council to act rather than remain passive. In response, the appointed commission began reviewing, updating, and improving old statutes and mandates. In addition, Bullinger and Gwalther, in a private report to the commission, suggested specific proposals for combating poverty and begging. Concerned with the misuse of church resources in the countryside, Bullinger advocated for the recording of accounts. He argued that in many places in the countryside, large expenditures were added to the church expenses by employing those who were not needed, yet had to be paid and entertained; in particular, Bullinger wished that the governors would not take additional earnings from the church account, like at the start of the Reformation, in order to curb the excessive expenditures.Footnote 111
Besides reducing costs, Bullinger and Gwalther shifted their focus by linking poverty alleviation with employment. Their proposals offered innovative suggestions that articulated broader changes. They were innovative, not in the sense that no one had ever heard of such employment initiatives, but innovative in the sense that these initiatives had not been actively pursued as part of a government-supported poor relief program in Zurich. Besides the familiar demands for a strict ban on begging, careful review of the authorization of individual alms, and a vigorous crackdown on vices, Bullinger and Gwalther highlighted a unique proposal to organize a government-supported program that simultaneously provided salaries for women and children, work for poor weavers, and clothing for students, orphans, and apprentices:
The women and children who are not capable, nor qualified to work in the fields should receive some [working materials] to spin and some bread (so they have something to eat in the meantime). Then tell them to deliver the yarn at a specified time, pay them with money for all additional work, and provide them with further work.
The spun yarn should be given to the many poor weavers to weave in the city and countryside. Hence one saves a large amount of money, which had been given annually to the Augustinians and the hospitals so that they could provide [sturdy clothes made of] linen and twill for the abandoned children, apprentice boys and others. [He advised the city] to sell any remaining cloths, so that the profit should at least be the amount needed for the raw materials. One should also strive to grow more flax and hemp at the cloisters for the poor women who live next to them in order to prepare and spin, so that they could have sufficient work and their earnings would increase. Eventually, one could set up businesses in cotton and other wools, which would be suited to this city, and together with the silk industry could serve many businesses, in which men and women, young and old could work and earn.Footnote 112
Bullinger and Gwalter also brought into consideration road-building as a form of temporary work. Finally, they suggested the building of workhouses for offenders, since able-bodied criminals should not simply be locked up, but rather given some kind of work, such as repairing crumbling roads and buildings.Footnote 113 While many of these measures focused on problems in the city, they also gave attention to the surrounding rural areas of Zurich. Footnote 114
In the Proposal for Combatting Poverty and Begging (1572), Bullinger and Gwalther urge for a reconsideration of the monthly or bimonthly distribution from the collected church donations for two main reasons. First, the regularly-scheduled distributions from the church offerings had caused poor people from all over the countryside to flock to the city to receive the regular monthly handout, thereby overwhelming the city's resources, including the hospital. Second, Bullinger saw poor people wasting their money by squandering most of it in the city or by spending it on drinking, so that very little of the money reached the countryside.Footnote 115 In response, the Commission decided that donation money collected from the churches would no longer be distributed regularly, but would be used sparingly and dispensed only for reasonable requests.Footnote 116 This change in policy from regular distribution of handouts to selective distribution by specific request disclosed an ongoing effort to channel financial aid to the deserving poor and a greater intentionality to reduce dependence whenever possible.
In his last years, Bullinger continued to emphasize the importance of poor relief, despite his growing pessimism. In his farewell letter to the magistrates, he urged the councilors to attend the sermons and communal prayers more frequently “as has been done so far by the majority of you.”Footnote 117 He also urged them to help the poor, the foreigners, the widows, and the orphans, and to graciously care for all faithful preachers, “for if you treat them badly and miserably, you will provoke the wrath of God upon yourselves.”Footnote 118 Bullinger instructed the councilors to ensure that poor relief does not break down; to manage the hospital and poorhouses without overcrowding them; and to rightly use donated wealth for the truly poor, schools, and the support of the church, so that “God will be honored with it.”Footnote 119 For Bullinger, these instructions carried religious significance since those who took pity on the poor would receive mercy from God while those who turned away from the poor would not have their prayers answered.Footnote 120 His underlying rationale for continued attention to poor relief was a religious motivation, namely to be heard by God. Yet, this was not mere spiritual musing confined to theoretical formulations, but a call to action to care for the poor, strangers, widows, and orphans who would not survive without assistance.
IV. Conclusion
Bullinger demonstrated both extensive sympathy for and criticism of the poor, thereby reflecting the ambivalence among sixteenth-century reformers between ancient Christian ideals of compassion toward the poor and growing social intolerance toward the visibly increasing number of beggars. In the interpretation of biblical texts, the dual forces of compassion and intolerance arose to emphasize generosity toward the poor, as well as judicious use of talents and resources. In order to address increasing economic distress, the combination of compassion and critique led religious leaders to deepen their understanding of the vexing problem of poverty and stimulated innovative means of addressing it.Footnote 121 In Bullinger's involvement with poor relief policies, he moved increasingly toward specific economic measures as potential solutions, but biblical ideals were not lost. On the contrary, Bullinger's conviction that the truly poor were members of the community motivated the ministers’ continuous efforts to fight poverty.
With crop failures in 1570, inflation and the lack of food resulted in a growing number of beggars, especially among those who had few social ties. The impetus to find solutions came from the pastors who spoke on August 20, 1572 before the Large Council, which, in view of the great woe and misery, requested the new commission to sift through and thoughtfully consider the best decrees.Footnote 122 In the following weeks, Bullinger worked on a report which he presented to the commission that was established to reconsider the old mandates on poor relief. By 1572, Bullinger, together with Gwalther, emphasized the economic means to combat poverty and mendicancy, namely by providing raw materials, employing the poor, supporting businesses, and buying the finished products. Bullinger and Gwalther had increasingly drawn the attention of the magistrates toward this type of assistance. The magistrates had started some efforts toward creating work, but the pastors continued to put pressure on the council to promote this type of work program. Years earlier in April 1558, pastors had indicated for the first time that the way to combat poverty was by remedying unemployment. On September 4, 1572, Bullinger introduced an expansive program that would give poor but able men, women, and children access to employment and earnings in the textile industry, and provide vocational training for boys in order to relieve the alms demands. He also recommended the hiring of the unemployed in road construction and encouraged prisoners to work.Footnote 123 At this point, many people did not realize the linkage between the causes of poverty and unemployment, since most people tried to deal with poverty through their individual arrangements.Footnote 124 After years of advocating for the needs of the poor, the pastors’ proposals signaled the beginning of examining the causes of poverty as a way to combat it.
Bullinger's biblical interpretation provided the prophet with the ideals for poor relief, but the pastor sought to apply these ideals in order to address social problems. As a keen observer of his time, Bullinger stimulated the continuous tackling of poor relief through his proposals, which encouraged a reevaluation and adjustment of ways to alleviate poverty. As the chief minister of Zurich, he would have been well acquainted with family struggles and stories of common artisans and tradesmen falling into poverty, as well as those who managed to find relief. Ministers and magistrates recognized that bad harvests and famines threatened poverty for a majority of the population. While the problem was larger than any one group could manage, Bullinger and Gwalther contributed to developing models for poor relief, which was advocated by the Reformed ministers, run by the city council, and funded by formerly Catholic church property and resources. Although this study focuses on Zurich, further research for a comparative study would be helpful to gain more insight into the formation of early modern social welfare, specifically in places where religious reform overlapped with poor relief reform.
Bullinger saw that true piety was linked with compassion, which would be revealed in the economic action of the city leaders and the people. He supported fair interest rates, employment opportunities, education and job training, and new business ventures as part of a good order which would enable all needs to be met. However, Bullinger was also aware of the dangers of economic abuse, where usurious or unfair loans would plunge subsistence farmers and workers into dire poverty, and even recognized the resulting systemic problem. Therefore he advocated for government intervention in such economic policies that preyed on the vulnerable working poor. He warned that such predatory economic behavior would eventually result in the ownership of these lands accumulating into a few hands, including outsiders beyond the city.
In his commentaries, sermons, and speeches, Bullinger repeatedly highlighted several points. First, the biblical standard was a relational and communal use of wealth, where people would use their resources to take care of their dependents and the poor around them by supporting the proper management of relief programs. Second, when city magistrates misappropriated church property, this violated both God's law and the people's trust. Third, the call for moral behavior was not intended to be a killjoy, but rather to limit consumptive immoral behavior that used up much-needed resources. Fourth, while the truly poor were those who could not work and rightly needed public assistance, able-bodied persons ought to receive employment through a state-run program so they could support themselves whenever possible.
For early Swiss Reformers, the support of poor relief and social welfare reform were the public and communal side of true faith. The heightened awareness of socioeconomic problems prompted the expression of religious ideals as social reform, thereby translating religious ideals into concrete social practices, albeit a negotiated and often imperfect reality. Because Bullinger saw care for the poor as an outgrowth of his pastoral ministry, he advocated for social programs aimed at reducing poverty. To achieve these goals, Bullinger entered the political arena by striving to persuade the magistrates to act upon his priorities for poor relief. The position of chief minister during the Reformation became closely tied to the advocacy for social change because of the hope that reform would result in a better society.
